That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative information, however notorious.
Fred > A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if > they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about > their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields > I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of > them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic > instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, > remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give > the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive > CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give > no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see > a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i > neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those > instructions. > > And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about > all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do > for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for > people to think they needed to write their own article. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >> This article makes my week. >> >> I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, >> but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its >> advantages. >> >> SJ >> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult >>> position >>> for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was >>> deleted. >>> >>> -Durova >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients >>>> >>>> PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote >>>> clients >>>> March 31, 2010 >>>> >>>> Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 PR consultants are being advised >>>> to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign >>>> strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted >>>> by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource >>>> to promote clients. >>>> >>>> >>>> (muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's >>>> rationales and likely actions very well indeed.) >>>> >>>> >>>> - d. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://durova.blogspot.com/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
